IC 1805 HaOIIIOIII

[vdb]

Tak 85 FSQ + QSI 683 + IEQ45, no callibration

15 x 15min Ha, 18 x 15 min OIII and 5 x 1 min RGB the RGB data was ment for star color but a bit to short.

Happy new year,

Yves

[kyokugaisha]

That is epic! What a wonderful image.

[Velvet]

very very nice

Velvet

[Gina]

Splendid, wonderful, lovely

[Andymac79]

Now theres a photo

[Mark72]

Magnificent image!

How do you manage to do without calibrating QSI 683?

Mark

[OutThereSomewhere]

Lovely colours & very nice melotte 15

[Coco]

Outstanding...love it!!

[SplintUK]

Surely this is a Hubble shot. It's bloomin' amazing. I wish I could put my name to anything a tenth as good as that.

[Sp@ce_d]

oh very nice

[vdb]

How do you manage to do without calibrating QSI 683?

I Guess I could get away with it because this object has lots of signal and does not require extreme stretching.

Yves

[vdb]

And a more tamed version:

[swag72]

Really do like this, prefer the 2nd tamer version! The detail is excellent and the colours suit it perfectly.

[ultranova]

wow, so perfect, the colours / the clarity / the processing, that would look great hanging on a wall

Top stuff

Paul.

[Welrod50]

Magazine worthy! If I were in your position, I would be looking to earn some pennies from photography as good as this.

Very well done!

[vdb]

Thanks for the very positive feedback everyone!

[JohnC64]

stunning!!!!!

[Lars]

Wonderful image! You have great data, but I still like the tamed version better since it's more variation in colours in the second picture.

/Lars

[vdb]

Yes, number 2 shows more variation, I will play with PI and Pixelmath some more as it gives quick results! I just discovered some nice formulas ...

[ollypenrice]

Ah, I'd seen the first one via Email and thought it sensational, but the second, though less flamboyant, strikes me as even better and more subtle. It's pure quality all the way.

Of course, you took it with the best amateur astrograph in the world!!! :grin: (I'm always telling Yves off for not loving his Baby Q enough...)

Olly

[vdb]

Well Olly I do love it more and more ... And although I love Harel's frst light from the Veloce ...

I compared it to my 80 minutes in the Tak 106, and could not really see any difference ...

And I dare say I could do it in the Tak 85 with the QSI in the same amount of time, If it ever gets clear ...

So yes I do love my baby Q more and more and I should venture in using the reducer with the H694 ... it has a little bit bigger FOV then the Veloce with 8300.

[ollypenrice]

Well Olly I do love it more and more ... And although I love Harel's frst light from the Veloce ...

I compared it to my 80 minutes in the Tak 106, and could not really see any difference ...

And I dare say I could do it in the Tak 85 with the QSI in the same amount of time, If it ever gets clear ...

So yes I do love my baby Q more and more and I should venture in using the reducer with the H694 ... it has a little bit bigger FOV then the Veloce with 8300.

Yes, the Veloce is a beast but what amazes me about the Baby Q is the phenomenal detail it can pull. I avoid the term 'resolution' because it has too many meanings. The Baby Q is also incredibly easy to use.

(Even I can do it on my own without sending you emails! )

Olly

[Kbramley]

That is one of the best I have seen, inspirational stuff

[Tim]

Very nice Yves

[3ggman]

Really stunning image.